Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Computer Support > Re: The AWG scam

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: The AWG scam

 
 
Dustin
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-30-2010
"SeaNymph" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:ifg9i4$tes$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org:

> "Jenn" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:ifg1u6$v96$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org...
>> Jane_Galt wrote:
>>> "Jenn" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote :

>>
>>
>>>> I lean more towards Solar,Wind,

>>
>>> The sun doesnt always shine and the wind doesnt always blow.

>>
>> True .. but the purpose of both is to charge batteries that will
>> work when the sun isn't shining and wind isn't blowing. I believe
>> the technology exists and we could find ways to incorporate those
>> methods as being supplemental to our current power supplies.

>
> It's not that simple. First one must consider the pollution
> generated by the production of those things, especially solar
> panels. Then, one must have an infrastructure designed to move the
> power from one place to another.
>
> The technology exists, it's just not far enough along to make it
> widely viable at this time.
>
>>
>>>> Geothermal, Water power,

>>
>>
>>> Not enough to make it up.

>>
>> I think it's worth exploring...

>
> It's all worth exploring, as long as the science is real. Companies
> have been doing this for some time without government regulation and
> demands.
>
>>
>>>> and alternative
>>>> bio fuels.

>>
>>
>>> Ethanol takes more energy to distill than it gives back, AND burns
>>> our food supply.

>>
>> Again, I think it can be an additional power source.

>
> Ethanol belongs on the scrap heap of things that sound good but
> didn't work. Ethanol does not burn as hot as gasoline, so your
> mileage is reduced so you have to buy more. The amount of
> pollutants generated to produce this stuff is staggering. Using
> food crops to produce ethanol is not really very sensible, because
> it tends to increase the cost of food, since the crops aren't being
> used for food. And then there are the problems associated with
> moving ethanol. It's a mess.


You forgot something about ethanol. Unless your vehicle is a flexfuel
kind, running ethanol in your older car is actually breaking down the
oil and harming the fuel system, including the injectors. Ethanol is
processed corn; it's not even suitable for corn mash whiskey. Poor
combustion rate, less milage. There are no gains for you as a car
owner, unless you have stock in a corn field.


--
Hackers are generally only very weakly motivated by conventional
rewards such as social approval or money. They tend to be attracted by
challenges and excited by interesting toys, and to judge the interest
of work or other activities in terms of the challenges offered and the
toys they get to play with.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Dustin
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-30-2010
"Jane_Galt" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:Xns9E5CA99D64216JaneGaltthegulchxyz@216.196.9 7.142:

> If it didn't have everything to do with redistribution of wealth,
> they'd agree to run the whole country on safe clean nuclear.


Please explain what you mean by safe, clean nuclear energy. As a lowly
electrical apprentice who spent two weeks rewiring a sub station fed by
a nuke site; I'm interested in your outsider thoughts. Then, I'll share
my insider thoughts on the subject.

> "There is enough nuclear fuel to last far longer than man will
> inhabit the earth." - Physics Professor Emeritus Dr. Howard Hayden,
> author of The Energy Advocate


True. Well more than enough.

> Nowdays they can recycle nuclear waste ( and of course it CAME from
> the earth anyway, even if they wanted to bury it ), and they have
> pre-packaged power plant designs that could be pre-approved and
> built very quickly. We could be running this whole country,
> including small vehicles, on nuclear, within 20 years, but of course
> that wouldn't fit the Progressive socialists' pseudo-
> environmentalist, actual redistribution of wealth agenda.


I'm unaware of our ability to recycle waste rods from a reactor. Do you
have a reference url for this?

> We could be running the whole country on safe clean nuclear energy,
> homes, businesses and cars, within 20 years, if government and the
> enviro-nazis would just GET OUT OF THE WAY.


No, that wouldn't be a good idea. Too many stupid drivers; It's why we
can't use hydrogen powered cars yet. A hydrogren powered car could
generate more than enough electrical power and exhaust drinkable!
water. The drawback? liqified hydrogen is a big bomb; and drivers
aren't careful enough. We couldn't outfit cars with nuke reactors for
the same reason. It's not always the technology that won't let us do
it, but uncurably stupid people who will get the technology and
invariable do what we think is worst case scenario.



--
Hackers are generally only very weakly motivated by conventional
rewards such as social approval or money. They tend to be attracted by
challenges and excited by interesting toys, and to judge the interest
of work or other activities in terms of the challenges offered and the
toys they get to play with.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Dustin
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-30-2010
"Jane_Galt" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:Xns9E5CE6F8ECD2DJaneGaltthegulchxyz@216.196.9 7.142:

> "Jenn" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote :
>
>> Jane_Galt wrote:
>>> "Jenn" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote :
>>>
>>>
>>>> I think we should allow drilling for oil here in the US, plus
>>>> allow for incentives to create new sources of energy that are
>>>> economically beneficial for everyone and also good for our
>>>> environment. Technology exists to do, but I tend to believe the
>>>> oil companies want to squash any realistic possibilities because
>>>> they want to line their own pockets.

>>
>>
>>> If it didn't have everything to do with redistribution of wealth,
>>> they'd agree to run the whole country on safe clean nuclear.
>>>
>>> "There is enough nuclear fuel to last far longer than man will
>>> inhabit the earth." - Physics Professor Emeritus Dr. Howard
>>> Hayden, author of The Energy Advocate
>>>
>>> Nowdays they can recycle nuclear waste ( and of course it CAME
>>> from the earth anyway, even if they wanted to bury it ), and they
>>> have pre-packaged power plant designs that could be pre-approved
>>> and built very quickly. We could be running this whole country,
>>> including small vehicles, on nuclear, within 20 years, but of
>>> course that wouldn't fit the Progressive socialists' pseudo-
>>> environmentalist, actual redistribution of wealth agenda.
>>>
>>> We could be running the whole country on safe clean nuclear
>>> energy, homes, businesses and cars, within 20 years, if government
>>> and the enviro-nazis would just GET OUT OF THE WAY.

>>
>> I'm on the fence when it comes to Nuclear power plants as I'm just
>> not all that sure how 'safe' they really are especially in the time
>> we live in now when every other terrorist nut group is trying to
>> kill anyone and everyone who doesn't fit into their particular
>> belief system.

>
> I've talked to people who run them, they have some very nasty
> defense systems built in.


The military guards? That is a good defense, yes. for someone intent
on coming inside the building to get to the control room. Without
disclosing nuke site weaknesses tho to anyone who might be reading; if
you know anything about the science behind it, you already know the
weakest link isn't protected by those guards and you can get a reactor
to go critical with a hawk saw and sometime. If you want to discuss
specifics, I'd suggest email. but if you think about what I wrote for a
moment, and you've been around a nuke plant; you already know what I'm
implying.

> The sun doesnt always shine and the wind doesnt always blow.


and the solar panels don't have enough amp rating do to much good for
the sunlight yet.

>> Geothermal, Water power,

>
> Not enough to make it up.


Nope.

>> and alternative
>> bio fuels.

>
> Ethanol takes more energy to distill than it gives back, AND burns
> our food supply.


And isn't good for the engines it's run in.


--
Hackers are generally only very weakly motivated by conventional
rewards such as social approval or money. They tend to be attracted by
challenges and excited by interesting toys, and to judge the interest
of work or other activities in terms of the challenges offered and the
toys they get to play with.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Jenn
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-30-2010
SeaNymph wrote:
> "Jenn" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message


>>
>> I never said it was simple.. I said it was more or less worth
>> investigating and developing.

>
> It is being looked into, and has been for decades. They still aren't
> where they need to be.


That's why they need to keep trying.


>>> Ethanol belongs on the scrap heap of things that sound good but
>>> didn't work. Ethanol does not burn as hot as gasoline, so your
>>> mileage is reduced so you have to buy more. The amount of
>>> pollutants generated to produce this stuff is staggering. Using
>>> food crops to produce ethanol is not really very sensible, because
>>> it tends to increase the cost of food, since the crops aren't being
>>> used for food. And then there are the problems associated with
>>> moving ethanol. It's a mess.



>> It's a more renewable resource than oil is, and eventually supplies
>> will decrease over time. It's better to investigate other methods
>> of renewable power sources now before we have that problem



> Is there some reason that you think this isn't being done, and hasn't
> been done for some time? What's the purpose of replacing one
> pollutant with another?


Pollutants aren't what they used to be.

Have you heard of this:

"West Virginia's first methane-fueled power plant now producing using
decomposing trash"
West Virginia's very first methane-fueled power plant has started the
production of electricity. It is expected to operate at full capacity
beginning next month.

The $6 million plant was built by Charleston Clean Energy LLC at a
Charleston landfill. The plant burns methane generated as a by-product of
decomposing trash.

http://www.examiner.com/environmenta...omposing-trash



--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)


 
Reply With Quote
 
Jenn
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-30-2010
Jane_Galt wrote:
> "Jenn" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote :



>>> The sun doesnt always shine and the wind doesnt always blow.

>>
>> True .. but the purpose of both is to charge batteries that will
>> work when the sun isn't shining and wind isn't blowing. I believe
>> the technology exists and we could find ways to incorporate those
>> methods as being supplemental to our current power supplies.
>>
>>>> Geothermal, Water power,

>>
>>
>>> Not enough to make it up.

>>
>> I think it's worth exploring...



> Explore all you want, the proof is cost effectiveness.


I don't think gasoline is 'cost effective', but we've built it into our
lives as something we have to budget for like we do food or any other daily
expense, and we're all held captive by the price of gasoline - will it go up
or down? I've been curious about some of the hybrid cars that run on both
gas and electric motors... drove one recently. It's an interesting concept
and would take some getting used to, but it could be more cost effective in
the long run than strictly gas only vehicles.

> Do you not think that all the geniuses in the world are just itching
> for ways to develop something that can cost less than burning fossil
> fuels and be cleaner too? You know how much money someone could make?


I don't know what the geniuses of the world itch to be doing... lol Might
be nice to be privy to that info, tho.. wouldn't it?


>>>> and alternative
>>>> bio fuels.

>>
>>
>>> Ethanol takes more energy to distill than it gives back, AND burns
>>> our food supply.

>>
>> Again, I think it can be an additional power source.



> WHY? It's like saying that burning our new clothing can "be an
> additional power source". What would be the point?


Not exactly ... it's more like we have gas heaters, but we also have a wood
stove for additional heat if we need it.


> Oh, and did you know that when you add ethanol to the gas each fall,
> it drops fuel efficiency by about 2 MPG?


yes ...

--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)


 
Reply With Quote
 
SeaNymph
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-30-2010

"Jenn" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:ifgkn9$m9q$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org...
> SeaNymph wrote:
>> "Jenn" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message

>
>>>
>>> I never said it was simple.. I said it was more or less worth
>>> investigating and developing.

>>
>> It is being looked into, and has been for decades. They still aren't
>> where they need to be.

>
> That's why they need to keep trying.
>
>
>>>> Ethanol belongs on the scrap heap of things that sound good but
>>>> didn't work. Ethanol does not burn as hot as gasoline, so your
>>>> mileage is reduced so you have to buy more. The amount of
>>>> pollutants generated to produce this stuff is staggering. Using
>>>> food crops to produce ethanol is not really very sensible, because
>>>> it tends to increase the cost of food, since the crops aren't being
>>>> used for food. And then there are the problems associated with
>>>> moving ethanol. It's a mess.

>
>
>>> It's a more renewable resource than oil is, and eventually supplies
>>> will decrease over time. It's better to investigate other methods
>>> of renewable power sources now before we have that problem

>
>
>> Is there some reason that you think this isn't being done, and hasn't
>> been done for some time? What's the purpose of replacing one
>> pollutant with another?

>
> Pollutants aren't what they used to be.


So, what degree of pollutants are you uncomfortable with? Are you saying
that all the pollutants produced in the production of ethanol are okay?
Ethanol comes with a host of problems, not the least of which are the
obvious pollutants, poor performance and a biggie...transportation.

>
> Have you heard of this:
>
> "West Virginia's first methane-fueled power plant now producing using
> decomposing trash"
> West Virginia's very first methane-fueled power plant has started the
> production of electricity. It is expected to operate at full capacity
> beginning next month.
>
> The $6 million plant was built by Charleston Clean Energy LLC at a
> Charleston landfill. The plant burns methane generated as a by-product of
> decomposing trash.
>
> http://www.examiner.com/environmenta...omposing-trash
>


This is something else that has been ongoing, on a lesser scale, for quite
some time. There are many ways to produce energy.

Something else to keep in mind is that petroleum products are used for much
more than fuel.


 
Reply With Quote
 
SeaNymph
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-30-2010

"Jane_Galt" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:Xns9E5DEAA151487JaneGaltthegulchxyz@216.196.9 7.142...
> "SeaNymph" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote :
>
>
>> Is there some reason that you think this isn't being done, and hasn't
>> been done for some time? What's the purpose of replacing one pollutant
>> with another?

>
>
> Run the whole country on safe clean nuclear.
>
> "There is enough nuclear fuel to last far longer than man will inhabit the
> earth." - Physics Professor Emeritus Dr. Howard Hayden, author of The
> Energy
> Advocate
>
> Nowdays they can recycle nuclear waste ( and of course it CAME from the
> earth
> anyway, even if they wanted to bury it ), and they have pre-packaged power
> plant designs that could be pre-approved and built very quickly. We could
> be
> running this whole country, including small vehicles, on nuclear, within
> 20
> years, but of course that wouldn't fit the Progressive socialists' pseudo-
> environmentalist, actual redistribution of wealth agenda.
>
> We could be running the whole country on safe clean nuclear energy, homes,
> businesses and cars, within 20 years, if government and the enviro-nazis
> would just GET OUT OF THE WAY.


I think nuclear is an excellent way to go. Of course, I'd like to see
someone develop cold fusion as well.


 
Reply With Quote
 
SeaNymph
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-30-2010

"Jenn" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:ifh4hj$rcf$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org...
> Jane_Galt wrote:
>> "Jenn" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote :

>
>
>>>> The sun doesnt always shine and the wind doesnt always blow.
>>>
>>> True .. but the purpose of both is to charge batteries that will
>>> work when the sun isn't shining and wind isn't blowing. I believe
>>> the technology exists and we could find ways to incorporate those
>>> methods as being supplemental to our current power supplies.
>>>
>>>>> Geothermal, Water power,
>>>
>>>
>>>> Not enough to make it up.
>>>
>>> I think it's worth exploring...

>
>
>> Explore all you want, the proof is cost effectiveness.

>
> I don't think gasoline is 'cost effective', but we've built it into our
> lives as something we have to budget for like we do food or any other
> daily expense, and we're all held captive by the price of gasoline - will
> it go up or down? I've been curious about some of the hybrid cars that
> run on both gas and electric motors... drove one recently. It's an
> interesting concept and would take some getting used to, but it could be
> more cost effective in the long run than strictly gas only vehicles.


The cost efficiency of gasoline is not really an issue at this point. To
effectively discuss the use of gasoline to power vehicles as opposed to
other sources, one must also account for the other uses of petroleum
products in this country, and throughout the word. Gasoline is a byproduct.


 
Reply With Quote
 
SeaNymph
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-30-2010

"Jenn" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:ifh4hj$rcf$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org...
> Jane_Galt wrote:
>> "Jenn" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote :

>

I've been curious about some of the hybrid cars that run on both
> gas and electric motors... drove one recently. It's an interesting
> concept and would take some getting used to, but it could be more cost
> effective in the long run than strictly gas only vehicles.


I have driven a Prius for almost 6 years. The problem with hybrid cars is,
of course, the battery. I think the industry would be well served to find
solutions to that issue.

There's nothing odd about hybrid cars, and some are better than others,
because of the system they utilize. They are a viable option, at this point
in time. The concept has been around for quite some time, Toyota just did
it better than Honda.



 
Reply With Quote
 
SeaNymph
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-30-2010

"Dustin" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:Xns9E5DC93F0B5CDHHI2948AJD832@no...
> "Jane_Galt" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
> news:Xns9E5CA99D64216JaneGaltthegulchxyz@216.196.9 7.142:
> No, that wouldn't be a good idea. Too many stupid drivers; It's why we
> can't use hydrogen powered cars yet. A hydrogren powered car could
> generate more than enough electrical power and exhaust drinkable!
> water. The drawback? liqified hydrogen is a big bomb; and drivers
> aren't careful enough. We couldn't outfit cars with nuke reactors for
> the same reason. It's not always the technology that won't let us do
> it, but uncurably stupid people who will get the technology and
> invariable do what we think is worst case scenario.


I've been fascinated with the idea of hydrogen cars for about 6 years. One
of the drawbacks, from what I've read, is the huge increase in water vapor
in the atmosphere, if they were widely driven.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Cash4gold Scam Ripoffreport.com Scam maryr345@live.com Digital Photography 3 05-05-2012 04:46 AM
Re: The AWG scam Ferd Berfle Computer Support 0 12-30-2010 03:25 PM
A bit off topic: The Barclays Bank scam Mike Richardson Perl 1 02-21-2004 04:54 AM
Re: Prove important update [I hope nobody fell for this scam] Stephen J. Rush Microsoft Certification 0 12-29-2003 11:19 AM



Advertisments